I've noticed in the mainstream media over the past couple weeks that they haven't been exactly positive about the Harper gov't.
A recent poll released by the media had the Conservatives and Liberals tied, yet another poll released shows the Conservatives with a 9 point lead. But is the media reporting it? Hmmm.
Clean Air Act
Andrew Coyne makes some points about the new The Clean Air Act in comparison to current Liberal leadership candidates' proposals.
Not true, say the Grits: we measure reductions relative to 1990, while theHow any Liberal can attack the act is beyond me. What also gets me is the ones who attack this plan, didn't say bub about the Liberals and their total lack of implementation of the Kyoto Accord. The Liberal leadership debate in Quebec pointed this out, with Dion on the defensive.
Tories use 2003 as a benchmark. Well, yes, but do the math: in 1990, emissions
were about four-fifths of what they were in 2003.* The Tories would aim to
reduce these by up to 65% -- call it 60% for simplicity -- meaning emissions in
2050 would be two-fifths of their 2003 levels. Two-fifths is half of
four-fifths, or a 50% reduction from 1990. That’s exactly what Michael
Ignatieff, for example, suggests.
But does the media pick this up and note the hypocricy? Hell no.
Go Dog Go!
So Peter Mackay supposedly made a remark in the House regarding his ex, Belinda, in response to Liberal MP David McGuinty's question about Peter's dog during a debate on above mentioned act. Comments like this are made all the time in the house. Obviously people forgot when Deb Grey was insulted by a Liberal MP using bacon as a reference in implying her weight. Was the media in such arms over that many years ago? Nope. So why now with Belinda?
The media loves Belinda. She gives them juicy stuff to write about. But she goes over the top when she says that it's sexist. Why is calling a man a dog a positive thing, but for a women, it's not? Unless of course the woman in question is being a b_ _ _ _.
Now the NDP want to make some politically correct rules of conduct for the lower chamber. Little do they forget that comments, questions, and anything said in the House MUST go through the Speaker. If the Speaker or recorder didn't hear it, doesn't get put in Hansard. Side comments, at whatever volume, are impossible to control and keep track of. But the NDP, in their inherent wisdumb, always jump at the chance when political correctness is at stake.
Duceppe is up to his old trick again of bribing the rest of Canada. Give us more money or we'll force an election. Fix the fiscal imbalance he says. In the same week, his former boss, Lucien Bouchard, says Quebeckers are lazy.
The media seems more interested in the fact that the minority Conservative gov't is under seige and doesn't have support than the fact that it's the separatists who contradict themselves.
Here we have a separatist party demanding more money from the country it wants to separate from where a former leader of said party says they are lazy. ot only that, but my guess is that if the so-called fiscal imbalance were made fair, Quebec would lose out considering they get more than enough in transfer payments already.
Do you hear any of that in the media? Nope.
The Liberals are currently whining about the fact that the two by-elections fall within their leadership race. Well, sorry Liberals. Our parliamentary system is set up so that political parties do not exist in the House of Commons, only caucuses do, so if seats are empty, they need to be filled. Also, if the Liberals believe that poll which shows them tied with the Conservatives, then having a leader or not won't make any difference right?
The Green Party leader wants to run in one of the ridings and is chastising the Conservatives for running someone, when she says that tradition and courtesy dictates that non-sitting leader be allowed to run uncontested. So if I started a party today and didn't have any seats in the House of Commons, I could run in a by-election and expect everyone to step aside? Give me a break.
Watch the media make Harper look like a chivilrous chump in this one.
Stephen Taylor does an excellent job of catching Garth Turner trying to cover up his breach of trust with the Conservative caucus. Garth, there's a reason why caucus meetings are closed-door. Ideas and open discussion are abound. Some get used, some don't. They kicked you out not because you claim you were representing your constituents, but because you broke the trust of your colleagues.
But how does the media spin this? They make Garth look like the victim!
I felt compelled to defend Mr. Harper and crew this week, due to an inherent bias in the media. That all said, the Conservatives need to do a much better job of controlling the spin. But it makes me wonder if the media isn't pissed off at Harper and causing vengence for his distaste of them.
In the end, the truth is laden aside to sensationalism.